Main content area

Inter- and intra-specific trait shifts among sites differing in drought conditions at the north western edge of the Mediterranean Region

Garnier, Eric, Vile, Denis, Roumet, Catherine, Lavorel, Sandra, Grigulis, Karl, Navas, Marie-Laure, Lloret, Francisco
Flora 2019 v.254 pp. 147-160
carbon, chamaephytes, climate, climate change, drought, dry matter content, environmental factors, hemicryptophytes, interspecific variation, leaf area, leaves, nitrogen, phanerophytes, phenotype, phosphorus, plant architecture, plant height, plant response, prediction, seed weight, Mediterranean region
Identifying consistent and predictable associations between traits and environment is one of the oldest quest of ecology. Yet, there are few formal and robust quantification of such associations, which seriously impedes our capacity to predict how ecological systems respond to global changes, including climate. This study was designed to assess how differences in environmental conditions affect plant form and function in a wide array of species.Twelve traits were measured on 40 species in three Mediterranean sites differing in drought conditions. Some species being common among sites, 78 species belonging to four major Raunkiær life form categories were studied. These traits correspond to: (i) plant size: vegetative and maximum plant height, (ii) seed mass, (iii) leaf morpho-anatomical traits: leaf area, specific leaf area, dry matter content and thickness, (iv) leaf chemical composition: mass based nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon contents, and carbon isotopic fraction.On average, there was a shift in the phenotypic space towards more resource conservative and taller species in the drier sites. These changes were not always consistent for hemicryptophytes and chamaephytes on the one hand, and for phanerophytes on the other hand. This is interpreted as different species responding to different aspects of complex changes in environmental factors. Intraspecific trait variation differed among species, and was lower than interspecific variation. Changes in site-average trait values were therefore mostly driven by species turnover among sites.The traits selected do not respond strongly to the differences in environmental conditions however, resulting in a moderate shift in the phenotypic space between sites. We argue that traits more directly related to plant water economy should be considered for an improved description of plant phenotypic response to the environmental factors at stake. The implications for the prediction of plant responses to climate changes likely to occur in the Mediterranean Region are discussed.


Help blind people to use the computer"
A review by John

The advancements in computing have opened a new world of opportunities for individuals all over the world. It has helped people develop careers, many individuals schooled online, and millions of other work, study and are entertained through computers. How can people with sight challenges benefit from these advancements? This program is developed to help the over 280 million blind and visually impaired people across the world make use of computers. The program translates visual information on the computer verbally, so it makes sense to someone who is visually impaired.

This program is an open source project and has vast community support that has worked to create translations in many international languages such as Spanish, Italian, Russian, French, among many other languages. It supports many synthetic voices including eSpeak and Microsoft Speech API, among many others. The application also supports relevant third-party devices such as Braille display through the USB or Bluetooth.

The program reads out the tests in documents and websites verbally, it informs the user when the window changes and many other features that enable visually impaired people to use the computer efficiently.

The program can be launched with key combinations making it easy for people with sight challenges to launch.

NVDA is licensed as freeware for PC or laptop with Windows 32 bit and 64 bit operating system. It is in enhancements category and is available to all software users as a free download.

Give a rating
login to vote
NV Access Inc
Last Updated On
March 11, 2019
Runs on
Total downloads
File size
21,74 MB

Similar programs

Can customize desktop. Change Windows icons and appearance
Windows 7 Downgrade
Reverse Windows 7 Enterprise to a previous version
Change or manage the logon screen
Change desktop wallpaper with Microsoft Bing
Windows Vista Transformation Pack
Will update your Windows XP with the latest Vista GUI


Please enter a quantity.

Crystal healing talisman with smooth, double-terminated Smokey Quartz crystal point, one from a tribe of seven (each its own unique individual. The minimal necklace braid is peace silk ('peace silk' is a name of silk made by ethical process where no silk worms were harmed) combined with organic unbleached linen yarn and grey micro-macrame cord allowing the pendant crystal to take centre stage. The unique beauty of this peace silk means that the braid includes thinner and thicker sections, mainly in cream tone but with some brown here and there - making the overall effect natural and organic. The tiny highlighting stones at the ends of the necklace braids are small Smokey Quartz cubes. The long necklace braid ends are are left open so you can tie the crystal to hang at your chosen height. This necklace would also be perfect in combination with others for a bohemian individual look.

This size of this crystal is just over 4 cm (1.6") The long necklace braids are 50 cm (19.5") each and come with a loosely tied reef knot to make it easy for you to wear straight away -if preferring a long length- but you can of course also open the braid ends to tie them shorter if you prefer wearing the crystal higher up.

FREE shipping on this 'Tribe of Seven' crystal amulet ~

Read here how to take care of your crystal jewellery.

A grounding and calming stone that elevates moods and dissipates negative emotions. "A Stone of Serenity", it is comforting and protective for one's aura. Smokey Quartz is thought to assist in creative endeavours and also in setting personal boundaries. Offers protection against electromagnetic rays. A good healing stone for improving general feeling of well-being. Relieves anxiety and worry, wards off confusion. Shielding crystal to create a calm, safe environment.

DOUBLE-TERMINATED QUARTZ: Due to a point in both ends, energy flows freely to both directions through this crystal, offering a sense of 'flow' in life. Particularly useful when working to help other people, or when doing healing work on oneself. Excellent for balancing and aligning the chakras. Can be used as a bridge between any two things, such as spirit and matter for example.


Uploaded by Natalie Eden Rañada

Natalie Eden Ranada
Have you ever experience not being able to breathe? Have you ever felt that
emptiness inside of you just welling up with the empty echoes of the abyss or your
vision just spinning as you walk during a normal day and the sounds you hear are
unrecognizable? Truth is, I didn’t have a clue what to call it at first, but its’ name
was Anxiety.
I never went to the Doctor but I knew deep down it was always there,
clinging and mocking my every step and in everything that I do. Some days, I win
its game but most days it takes over mine. Not to scare anyone but I am a Happy,
kind, sensitive and jolly person and I love people. I love my friends, my family, my
boyfriend, art, music, food and life. I am loved.
So why do I have Anxiety? I am not really certain but I think it because I
have the feeling of uncertainty,no one to talk to or when things don’t go as plan. I
experience panic attacks through simple situations such as confrontations, night
terrors in my sleep wakes me up screaming and the usual insomnia that affects me
being functional during the day. My parents knows about it but they don’t fully
grasp what I feel. I did what they told me that prayers would save me but sadly it
isn’t enough. So days like these are scary especially when I am living alone with
my little brother while my parents are working abroad, the tears just flows and so
does the shaking. Small pleas of help for 10 long years.
My music and my love for art helps me divert my attention to a brighter
light. Though I think it is time to meet a Doctor soon. I plan to make the first step
to becoming better. So I hope anyone who is reading this and experiencing
moments like mine, take a step with me and let’s live for everydays.
Anxiety and Disorder
by Bailey Kay - Miss Sandy City International
I was in seventh grade when I discovered I had anxiety. I
didn't go to school for 2 months because every day my
mom would take me, and I would end up on the floor of
the car sobbing and hyperventilating. I was a sophomore
in high school when I was diagnosed with depression. I
skipped class a lot, I would cry over everything, and I
would never leave the house.
“I thought everyone would be better off without
I deal with depression and anxiety every day. I started
doing pageants my senior year. I discovered I loved
volunteering and helping others who were going through
the same thing as me. My platform is about speaking up
about depression and anxiety. Depression and anxiety
isn't something to be ashamed of. Everyone and anyone can suffer. So why do we make it
such a taboo thing to talk about? I discovered ADAA and was amazed that they stood for
everything I believed in. They want people to be able to talk about what they're going
through, they don't want you to feel like you're going through these things alone. That's
why I joined this organization. It has really put a step out there for people to share their
stories and to be able to talk to others going through these same trials. Anxiety and
depression is scary, but it's real and you don't have to feel alone.
This Is Not The End – Inspiring Speech On
Depression & Mental Health
I want you to know that, no matter where you are in life… No matter how low you have
sunk… No matter how bleak your situation… This is NOT THE END.
This is not the end of your story
This is not the final chapter of your life.
I know it may be hard right now
But if you just hang in there
Stick it out
Stay with me for a little while…
You will find, that this tough moment will pass, and, if you are committed to USING this
pain, using it to build your character, finding a greater MEANING for the pain, you will
find that, in time, you can turn your life around, and help others going through the same
The world right now is in the middle of a mental health crisis.
It’s estimated almost half the population suffers from depression at some stage
throughout their life.
Rather than join the cue, it’s important we it’s learn why we get down, and then how we
can change it, because believe it or not, we create our own negative feelings and we can
also ensure that we turn our lives around and be a positive change for others.
The reason anyone gets depressed always comes down to the CONSISTENT thoughts we
think, and the CONSISTENT beliefs we hold.
Let me say that again.
think, and the CONSISTENT beliefs we hold.
If I believe I am fat, horrible, ugly and unworthy of love, I will most likely become
depressed or have depression thoughts
If my thought process is “I must be in a relationship and earn X amount to be happy” I
might get depression if I don’t achieve those goals.
The point here is that anyone that is depressed, is so, because there is an external factor
that didn’t materialize in their life –
i.e…. (They have lost something outside of their
control, or don’t have something that is out of their control)
the most common
reasons for depression are : a lost a job, relationship break downs or non existence, body
image, comparison to others.
The only way out of this is to work on yourself, every day.
In school we are taught how to get a job, but no one teaches us how to live in a state of
No one teaches us how important our conscious and unconscious
thoughts and associations are.
Is our happiness not worth more than a job?
Yes it is.
And before you say, happiness won’t pay my bills – happiness WILL pay your bills,
when you realize you will be 10 times more energized, focused and take positive action
in your life, when you FIRST choose to develop yourself as a priority, and THEN get to
all the “stuff” of the world.
I’ve seen some people, who many would consider to “have it all” end their life because
they thought they were not good enough.
A thought, a belief within them told them they were not worthy.
These people that many were jealous of, many envious of, were not good enough.
You must value yourself enough, to take the time EVERY SINGLE DAY to work on
you. To engage in something, that will ensure you are a positive influence on the world.
This of course doesn’t mean life will suddenly be perfect. The same life-challenges will
show up, but if your mind is strong, if you mind is at peace, your REACTION to the
challenging times will be very different.Your reaction will be HOW CAN I MAKE THIS
WORK, not ‘why is this happening to me’
And then others will look to you, not with pity but with HOPE, because your strength
will become their HOPE, their strength.
You really can be that powerful.
You can ditch the victim story, you can leave the pain behind and FOCUS on how you
will react next. How you will react positively.
Read. Read all you can read to get your mind in a positive place.
Take steps to ensure you will be in a better position next time – whatever pain you are
suffering – how can you ensure it won’t show again –
Take little steps… and soon
you will be at the top of the stair case.
Don’t give up
You are worthy
You are more than worthy!
You deserve to experience how great life can be – and you owe it to the world to be that
positive change for others. To inspire others – who will look to you and say – he did it,
she did it, and I can do it too.


0 items - $0.00

Your shopping cart is empty

Why not add some items in our Shop

Every effort has been made to accurately represent our products and their potentials. There is no guarantee that you will earn any money using the techniques and ideas provided with this website (TheDigitalMart.Net).

Examples on TheDigitalMart.Net should not to be interpreted as a promise or guarantee of earnings. Earning potential is entirely dependent on the person using the information included on this site, the ideas and the techniques. We do not purport this as a get rich scheme. Your level of success in attaining the results claimed in this page depends on the time you devote to the ideas and techniques mentioned your finances, knowledge and various skills. Since these factors differ according to individuals, we cannot guarantee your success or income level. Nor are we responsible for any of your actions.

Materials in this page may contain information that includes forward-looking statements that give our expectations or forecasts of future events. You can identify these statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as anticipate, estimate, expect, project, intend, plan, believe, and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with a description of potential earnings or financial performance.


A: Probably best to take this one bite at a time:

Encrypted: The process of encoding a message or information in such a way that only authorized parties can access it and those who are not authorized cannot.

Chat: A specific form of electronic communication. Originally containing only text, but in recent years has been upgraded to allow inclusion of images, video, and sound.

Client: The application used by the end-user of the computer or mobile device.

So, and encrypted chat client is an application that allows two or more people to share text and possibly images, sound, and video among themselves, and prevents others from access by way of encoding the communication.

Examples include Apple Messages, Wire, and Signal.


Only a fool will do it …

A debate is currently going on, on the issue of building FCC (Future Circular Collider, with 100 Tev p-p colliding energy, will be run by CERN) after Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder wrote an Op-Ed article {The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics} at The New York Time on January 23, 2019, see .

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies and is the author of the book: {Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, Published on June 12, 2018). Her book criticizes the recent (past 40 years) development on the foundational theoretical physics which is based on the ideas of naturalness, SUSY and multiverse. She views that these lead the theoretical physics into a wrong path. However, she did not object the building the larger particle collider (larger than the current LHC) in her book. Her objection of FCC is only a recent conviction, after I informed her on December 6, 2018, that I have single-handed killed the China Super Collider project, see tweet below.

Or see

Also see her statement {That’s right, I changed my mind about building a larger collider because I realized I am not consistent with myself when being in favor of it.}, see

More details about this debate, see her blog post: {Particle physicists surprised to find I am not their cheer-leader (February 02, 2019, )}.

While Hossenfelder is rehashing this 100 Tev p-p collider debate on FCC of CERN, it will be very useful to review the HISTORY on the same debate for the China Super p-p 100 Tev collider.

One, the push for the China Super p-p 100 Tev collider began in 2015 by Dr. Shing-Tung Yau (William Caspar Graustein Professor of Mathematics) at Department of Physics of Harvard University, see ) who published a book:  {From the Great Wall to the Great Collider: China and the Quest to Uncover the Inner Workings of the Universe}, published by International Press of Boston, (214 pp.). ISBN 978-1-57146-310-4 (on Oct 23, 2015)}.

This book was reviewed by:

By Peter Woit (Not Even Wrong), see

And, by (01 April 2016)

Two, Strings 2016 was held in Beijing in August 2016 to promote the Super China Collider (SPPC, 100 Tev.), see

Almost one thousand String theorists attended the conference, including David Gross (Nobel Laureate), Edward Witten, Nima Arkani-Hamed (who was then the Direct of SPPC project).

Three, on 2016/09/04, Dr. C.N. Yang (Nobel Laureate) wrote an article against the SPPC project with the reason that China is still a developing country and is not ready for this kind of endeavor (not on the physics reason), see his article { }.

Four, by December 2016, the promoters of SPPC project (Dr. Yifang Wang, the director of Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) of The Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Shing-Tung Yau)  had secured almost the entire HEP community to endorse the SPPC projects, the big names are, see ( for their endorsing articles) :

Stephen Hawking (December 30, 2016)

Steven Weinberg (Nobel Laureate), December 28, 2016

Sheldon Lee Glashow (Nobel Laureate), December 23, 2016

Edward Witten, December 21, 2016

David Gross (Nobel Laureate), December 19, 2016

Nima Arkani-Hamed (Institute for Advanced Study, School of Natural Sciences, director of SPPC project)

The most convincing argument is from Stephen Hawking, saying {China has an incredible opportunity to become the world leader here — don’t waste it. A good example is to build the Great Collider that can lead high energy physics for the next fifty years.}

Five, Hawking’s argument is very powerful for any political leader. By March 2017, the rumor says that the SPPC project was officially approved by the highest official of China (meaning by President Xi). Of course, Dr. C. K. Yang alone was no match to all those Nobel Laureates.

Six, after knowing that SPPC program was officially approved, on April 7, 2017, I decided to oppose the project and wrote my first article. On May 5, 2017, I wrote my 4th (final article), see tweet .

By May 11 (less than one week later), I got the feedback that the SPPC program was officially killed. I tweet this on May 14, 2017, see

More details are available at

For the pdf of the four articles, see

For the Chinese version of the articles, see

From the timeline above, it is super clear that I was the one who single-handed killed SPPC program of China.

How can I do it?

One, this kind of big project must be approved by the TOP, TOP leader, in this case, President Xi. While Xi is a great political genius, he does not know physics. That is, he will only count the names of each group. On the pro-group, there are three Nobel Laureates + Stephen Hawking (who is a super celebrity in China) + almost all HEP big names (Witten, Nima, etc.) + his physics advisors (Yifang Wang and Shing-Tung Yau). On the Con-side, there was only one (Dr. C. N. Yang) who did not opposite it on the reason of physics. Thus, if SPPC does not produce any physics, Xi will not be responsible for this. By all means, the SPPC program will make China the leader of the HEP for the next 50 years. Furthermore, a null result from SPPC will officially move HEP into new territory, abandoning the current paradigm. Furthermore, the claimed cost for SPPC was only 16 billion (US dollars) which is only a packet change for China as she had over three (3) trillion cash reserves at that time.

Conclusion: President Xi’s approving the SPPC project (as the rumor said in March 2017) cannot go wrong, 1) 20 billion is only a packet change, 2) will be the leader of HEP for the next 20 years at least, 3) the null result — > new paradigm, 4) almost 99.99% of HEP community support the project.

That is, no amount of physics or else arguments can defeat the 4 points above.

Two, as the supreme leader of China, President Xi has everything. All that he cares about is his achievement in HISTORY. If there is one line in the history says: {President Xi did not listen to the advice of Gong on the SPPC project}, this one sentence will destroy all his great legacy. Of course, if Gong is a nobody in Chinese history, this sentence will never be written. But President Xi knows all too clear that in the entire humanity (from ancient to eternal future) only one person he (Xi) cannot afford to challenge, the Gong. When he challenges Gong, a sentence will be written in history, either way.

Conclusion: my four articles are very powerful but truly carry no weight; as if they were written by others, they will carry no power at all on this debate. My name (the Gong) is the only reason killed SPPC project.

No leader in China has the courage to oppose me if he wants to preserve his legacy in History.

On the other hand, my name has no meaning in Japan. That is, the death of ILC (if happens, see note) will not be caused by my name. However, the Japanese must have investigated the SPPC case of China. My four articles (while carrying no weigh in China) must carry some weigh in Japan.

I published a new book {Nature’s Manifesto: Nature vs Bullcraps; in January 2017 with the US copyright # TXu 2-078-176}. This book is available at many university libraries, such as Princeton, see graph below.

It is now available at

After the publication of this book:

Edward Witten has officially abandoned the String theory.

Sean Carroll is no longer hyping the multiverse; from January 25, 2017 to now, he is writing less than 1 blog a month in comparing to the average of one per week before that. See

For this new FCC debate, here is my tweet, see  (on January 29, 2019)

With my book, only a fool will build a new collider.

Welcome Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder to the right (and winning) side of the history.

In addition to the China Super p-p collider (which I killed 18 months ago), there are two other super collider projects in the world.

One, ILC (International Linear collider) in Japan, and its fate will be determined next month (March 2019). With my killing the China Super collider, it is very hard for Japan to continue the project. It is very much dead with the recently leaked out rumor. We will see soon enough.

Two, FCC (Future Circular collider, will be run by CERN, the Europe project), and it is now very much in doubt.

Scott Aaronson (the David J. Bruton Centennial Professor at MIT) is a proponent of building the FCC but is admitting that FCC is now in trouble, see his comment ( ). This is also reported by Peter Woit (a very prominent HEP physicist), see graph.

For the past 40 years, both M-string and SUSY failed on every experimental test but insisted that they are the ONLY GAME in town.

Now, Lee Smolin (a theoretical physicist at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics) just admitted that they are not the only game in town, see graph below.

The above shows that SUSY and M-string theory is not the only game in town. This can be shown with the following graph.

Today (2-19-2019), the New Yorker published an article {A different kind of Theory of Everything}, by Natalie Wolchover (interviewed Nima Arkani-Hamed),  Nima finally accepted the theory of Prequark, see graph below.

Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler and his group are still looking for new particles beyond SM (see ). But with the book {Nature’s Manifesto: Nature vs Bullcraps}, there cannot be one, the reason for not building FCC.

{Note (added on March 7, 2019): the ILC of Japan was killed, see

On 22 Feb 2019, CERN director-general Fabiola Gianotti tried to sure-up the support for future larger colliders (including ILC) in a Physicsworld interview (see ). Also, see my tweet below.

Now, Gianotti fails on this ILC issue.

End note}

See the following tweets:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Without getting an answer to this question, any physics theory cannot be the FINAL theory.

However, Sean M. Carroll has recently (February 8, 2018) wrote a chapter on this for ‘Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Physics, with the following abstract.

{It seems natural to ask why the universe exists at all. Modern physics suggests that the universe can exist all by itself as a self-contained system, without anything external to create or sustain it. But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation.}

And with the conclusion: {The right response is “that’s just the way things are.” It’s up to us as a species to cultivate the intellectual maturity to accept that some questions don’t have the kinds of answers that are designed to make us feel satisfied.}

That is, Carroll has denied that {Why is there something rather than nothing?} is a legit question of any kind (physics or otherwise). And, I have made the following tweet as a response.

That is, if there is an answer, then Carroll’s argument will be cut out by Occam’s razor.

{Why is there something rather than nothing?} is really a question of {How this universe was created?}; I have provided a detailed answer on this at my tweet (see, ).

However, I will provide a detailed discussion about:

{Something (in appearance)} = {Nothing (in essence)}

First, what is nothing?

In math, ‘nothing’ can be represented by a number (zero).

Then, what is zero?

In math, zero can be defined with, at least, two equations.

Zero (c) = 1/ (countable infinity)

Zero (u) = 1/ (uncountable infinity)

As these two infinities are clearly and precisely defined in math, thus ‘nothing (zero)’ is also precisely defined.

Second, in addition to zero/infinity, there are FINITE numbers in math. However, these two parts are totally disjoined: infinities can never transform into finite, and vice versa.

Third, is there ‘nothing (zero)’ in the physical universe? Obviously, the answer is no. If the answer is Yes, then the question {Why is there something rather than nothing?} has been answered.  The best ‘nothing (zero)’ in the physics universe is the CC (Cosmology Constant) which has 120 zeros after the decimal point at least.

Without ‘nothing’, then this physical universe cannot have ‘infinities’ neither as a physical REALITY.

If these are the case, then there is a fundamental difference between math and physics although math is a great tool and language for physics. And, the issue of CREATION can, indeed, never be answered by science.

Of course, there is another possibility. Although infinities can never transform into finite numbers, they might be able to be embedded in physical objects. If this is the case, something can be created from nothing (infinities); that is,

In G-theory, I have shown two such transformations.

One, countable infinity (or zero (c)) is embedded (transformed) into a trisected angle.

It takes COUNTABLE steps to trisect any angle by evenly dividing it, with the following steps.

1/3 = 1/2 – 1/4 + 1/8 – 1/16 + 1/32 – 1/64 + 1/128 – 1/256 + 1/512 – 1/1024 + 1/2048 -… +…

= .33349 – … + … = .3333333333333…..

Of course, a trisected angle is definitely a concrete object. If humans do not have the time to complete this task, nature will definitely have a better chance of doing it.

Two, can uncountable infinity manifest into a concrete object? For the number pi (3.14159…), it has uncountable digits as it is a “normal” number.

{(Pi / 4) = 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – 1/11 + 1/13 – … + … (with “countable” infinite steps)}

That is, pi (having uncountable digits) is reached with the above equation. Yet, there is a concrete object (a circle) which always associates with the number pi. Thus, the uncountable infinity MANIFESTS as a circle which is a concrete object.

As these two infinities (of math) are embedded (transformed) into two physics (concrete) objects:

First, the {math universe = physics universe} becomes possible. But, I will not discuss this here.

Second, these two embedments have shown:

These simply lead to the ‘First principle’ and the creation equation (equation zero).

At every moment of ‘t’ on the time hose, it is, in fact, ‘nothing’ while ‘equation zero’ creates ‘something (a structure)’. The parts of that structure are something but that structure is in essence ‘nothing’.

So, the structure (encompassing matter and anti-matter) will not annihilate while the parts (something) can be annihilated between their anti-partners. That is, there is no BaryonGenesis issue, see .

After the creation of a structure (nothingness in essence), the arrangement (distribution) of its parts becomes the ‘Second Principle (Mixing principle)”, and it leads to the { Cabibbo angle (θc)), Weinberg angle (θW ) and Alpha}.

These calculations are direct results of the {Second Principle (Distribution/Mixing principle)} which is totally based on the Pi (uncountable infinity concretizing process).

At the same time, the (countable infinity concretizing process) creates three Line-strings which carries two Trinary-charges (quark colors and Gene-colors).

Then, the Third Principle should be the ‘Bookkeeping/Information Processing’ which leads to CC (Cosmology Constant) and a computing device.

Of course, this computing device leads to the manifestation of Life.

Furthermore, these principles must lead to some consequences.

One, time hose must lead to an accelerating expansion of the universe and the Unified force.

This leads to QG (quantum gravity).

And, it must produce the following distribution.

This calculation also shows the answer to the BaryonGenesis.

And this dark energy (vacuum energy) must lead to a Vacuum-Boson.

Two, as the Dark Flow is changing the distribution of the parts of the STRUCTURE, this universe must swing from one extreme to another; that is, it must be cycling.

The evidence of this Dark Flow has discovered about one year ago.

Finally, these lead to an 11-dimension universe.

Some conversations:

More details, see

The great progress on Multiverse and Popperiansim

The Multiverse was invented after the discovery of String-landscape, having zillions different string-vacua. Thus, by definition, each bubble of the multiverse has different vacuum and thus has different natural constants and physics laws.

There are two immediate consequences from this definition:

One, THIS universe of ours is just a happenstance, one out of the zillions randomly floating bubbles. That is, the natural constants of THIS universe is not a consequence of any law or logic but a happenstance and thus cannot be DERIVED.

Two, those bubbles are disconnected by DEFINITION. The chance for anyone of them to collide is very small. {Note: no evidence of the bubble-collisions is detected.} And, this leads to the conclusion that the Multiverse is not falsifiable, and this starts the debate on Popperianism.

In fact, the Multiverse can be easily killed by showing two points.

One, all natural constants of THIS universe can be derived THEORETICALLY.

Two, the DERIVATIONS of these natural constants are bubble-independent.

And, I have shown these two on October 27, 2013, see .

On January 17, 2018 (almost five years after my article), Sean Carroll (Astrophysicist at Caltech) wrote an article: “Beyond Falsifiability”, saying {Cosmological models that invoke a multiverse – a collection of unobservable regions of space where conditions are very different from the region around us – are controversial, on the grounds that unobservable phenomena shouldn’t play a crucial role in legitimate scientific theories. I argue that the way we evaluate multiverse models is precisely the same as the way we evaluate any other models, on the basis of abduction, Bayesian inference, and empirical success. There is no scientifically respectable way to do cosmology without taking into account different possibilities for what the universe might be like outside our horizon. Multiverse theories are utterly conventionally scientific, even if evaluating them can be difficult in practice.

cosmological multiverse, …. It’s not the best name, as the idea is that there is only one “universe,” in the sense of a connected region of space, but of course, in an expanding universe, there will be a horizon past which it is impossible to see. If conditions in far-away unobservable regions are very different from conditions nearby, we call the collection of all such regions “the multiverse.”}

It is very nice of seeing the diehard Multiverse devotee (Sean Carroll) has finally come around.

First, Carroll’s multiverse is no longer disconnected bubbles but is a bad name for the parts which hide beyond the event horizon of THIS universe.

Second, the stupidity of the Popperianism has finally been challenged. Truth by definition cannot be falsified.

I wrote about the stupidity of Popperianism many, many years ago. The most recent one is available at .

Massimo Pigliucci (the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York) still tried to defend Popper, and he  wrote a comment (on January 22, 2018) on Carroll’s article; he wrote, {Setting aside that falsificationism is not a scientific theory, but rather a notion in philosophy of science (after all, how would you falsify Popper’s account?), Sean admits that he hasn’t gone over the nuances of what Popper actually wrote. That’s unfortunate, because Popper was a bit more of a sophisticated philosopher than he is usually given credit for. Even though his ideas are no longer current in philosophy of science (you know, philosophy does make progress!), if one invokes him to dismiss a scientific theory (as Ellis and Silk do), or, conversely, rejects his insight in order to deflect criticism against one’s favorite theory (as Sean does), it would be good to take a look at what the men actually wrote.

Without going into too much detail (for an in-depth discussion and pertinent quotes see my Aeon article mentioned above), Popper realized that falsification is not a sharp blade capable of neatly cutting off science front non-science. He was also aware of, and discussed at length, the fact that legitimate scientific theories do include ad hoc explanations that are used by scientists as place holders until (and if) they figure out what is wrong with the theory they are working on. Nobody has ever rejected a scientific theory because all its statements were not immediately falsifiable, nor did Popper suggest such a crude practice in the first place.}

It is nice to know that Popperianism is now a dinosaur in the Philosophy of Science, but the stupidity of Popperianism has done the science a great harm and is still misleading zillions people. There are two simple points on this Popperianism.

One, Popperianism is conceptually wrong although it might be having some practical use, as all the crap theories can be easily falsified. But, the truth by definition cannot be falsified while all truths can be verified.

Two, the damning concept of Popperianism on science was widely accepted by the Western society while Popper did not come out to denounce it; so, all his other good or great ideas on science cannot be the excuse for the wrongness of that naive-Popperianism which is not only wrong but is totally stupid.

The tide of eradicating the two tumors {the Parallel-Multiverse and the naive-Popperiansim} of physics is now chased by many mainstream physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder.

Edward Witten, a physics hero

On November 28, 2017, Quanta Magazine published an article of Natalie Wolchover (a senior writer at Quanta magazine, winner of 2017 AIP Science Writing Award) who interviewed Edward Witten recently. That article is available at .

I must praise and complement Witten’s courage to give the death sentence to M-string theory finally, as it is after all his hallmark.

Of course, Wolchover’s article itself is heavily camouflaged for upholding Witten’s dignity, with many side-attractors. However, the following direct quotes of Witten’s statement from the article will reveal Witten’s true intention clearly.

A) The direct quotes

{Now, Nati Seiberg [a theoretical physicist who works down the hall] would possibly tell you that he has faith that there’s a better formulation of quantum field theory that we don’t know about that would make everything clearer. I’m not sure how much you should expect that to exist. That would be a dream, but it might be too much to hope for; I really don’t know.

Physics in quantum field theory and string theory somehow has a lot of mathematical secrets in it, which we don’t know how to extract in a systematic way.

I could point to theories where the standard approach really seems inadequate, so at least for those classes of quantum field theories, you could hope for a new formulation. But I really can’t imagine what it would be.

I think our understanding of what it (M-theory) is, though, is still very hazy. AdS/CFT and whatever’s come from it is the main new perspective compared to 22 years ago, but I think it’s perfectly possible that AdS/CFT is only one side of a multifaceted story. There might be other equally important facets.

Maybe a bulk description of the quantum properties of space-time itself, rather than a holographic boundary description. There hasn’t been much progress in a long time in getting a better bulk description. And I think that might be because the answer is of a different kind than anything we’re used to. That would be my guess.

I guess I suspect that there’s an extra layer of abstractness compared to what we’re used to.  … But I can’t say anything useful.}

The above statements clearly show four points.

One, QFT is a failed program for describing the nature.

Two, {M-string theory + AdS/CFT + hologram} fail to describe nature.

Three, he suspects that there is an extra layer of abstractness in addition to the two above.

Four, he simply does not know what that extra layer of abstractness could be.

These four points not only give M-string death sentence but also on all other theoretical cornerstones (QFT, AdS/CFT, and hologram) of the mainstream paradigm for the past 50 years.

B) A brief history

Is his finally accepting the total defeat the result of the no-show of SUSY at LHC?

For many SUSY devotees, the no-show of SUSY at LHC is just a great reason for building a bigger collider, such as the proposed 100 Tev Chinese Super Collider,  which was pushed by the entire West, the most notable prominent physicists are David Gross, Witten, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Hawking and countless others (Nima, Tommaso Dorigo, etc.).

Figure 1

Figure 1a

However, my Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, China) talked to David Gross at String 2016 about the G-theory.

Figure 2

This might lead to the article of K. C, Cole {The Strange Second Life of String Theory, on September 15, 2016, see } which strongly hinted that the first life of M-string was dead.

By May 11, 2017, the CSC (100 Tev Chinese Super Collider) was officially killed after my series (4) of articles, see .

Figure 3

Finally, on Oct 17, 2017, Steven Weinberg gave a video presentation for ‘Int’l Centre for Theoretical Physics’ and revealed that both Witten and Nima have given up M-string theory (see at one hour 32 minutes mark).

C) An analysis

Can Witten hold out his total surrender?

Of course, not.

For saving M-string, it must add two points.

In my November 5, 2011, article {M-theory, a TOE if and only if it adds two points, see }, I showed only one point.

M-string is a string without any INTERNAL structure while the G-string is composed of prequarks and with internal structure.

Figure 4

This G-string immediately provides the ‘String unification’, describing all fundamental fermions with a clearly defined language.

It also immediately resolves the BaryonGenesis mystery.

Figure 5

I did not discuss what the second point needed for M-string theory is in that 6-year-old article. Now, here it is, the ‘First principle’: the real/ghost symmetry.

Figure 6

The direct consequences of this are:

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

D) My comment

The past 100 years were very successful in the experimental physics while it was a total disaster on the theoretical side, see .

I, however, must congratulate Witten’s courage of finally admitting that M-string was a total failure. Only hero has this kind of courage.

Note (added on December 4, 2017): on December 1, 2017, Scientific Controversies (Sci Con; a series of conversations between scientists hosted by PW Director of Sciences Janna Levin) held a public discussion with the title {Scientific Controversies: String Theory} with two prominent physics {David Gross (Nobel Laureate in Physics) and Clifford Johnson}.

Levin began the discussion by asking the two of them where they stood on string theory: pro, con or agnostic? This flustered Gross a bit (he’s one of the world’s most well-known and vigorous proponents of string theory) and Levin somehow took this as meaning that he was agnostic. Finally Gross clarified things by saying something like “I’ve been married to string theory for 50 years, not going to leave her now”.

Figure 10

Obviously, however wrong the M-string theory is, Gross cannot abandon her after 50 years marriage. Although without the courage of Witten, Gross’ loyalty for LOVE must also be praised.

Heavenly Father and his artistic baby

Heavenly Father created THIS universe with His ‘First Principle’.

Figure 1

A: The consequences

The consequences of this first principle (Equation zero, G-theory) are followings:

One, time moves forward as a time-hose to create a space-time cone, and space expands at EVERY point with constant speed ‘C’, and it consists of 11-dimensions (see ).

Figure 2

Two, it produces ‘intrinsic spin (1/2 h-bar) via bouncing between the real/ghost worlds.

Figure 3

Three, for any set of concentric circles, the outer circle moves always with acceleration.

Four, Universe structure of G-theory produces:  Matter, 24 fermions; Anti-matter, 24 anti-fermions and Vacuum/space, see . This rules out any additional fermions (Such as SUSY) or sterile particles (such as WIMPs, sterile neutrino).

Five, all 48 fermions emergent out from each time quanta. That is, matter/anti-matter co-exist at every time-moment, and there is no matter/anti-matter annihilation at the Big Bang.

Six, it locks two measuring rulers {C (light speed) and ħ (Planck constant) with two locks:

First lock, electric charge (e) = F (square root of (ħ x C)

Second lock, alpha (electric fine structure constant, a dimensionless pure number, unchangeable by selection of dimension-units) = {1/137.0359…}.

Seven, the universe pie is thus divided into three pieces via an intrinsic Angle (A (0)): energy (space), energy (time) and matter (visible and not visible).

Eight, it produces the gene-color: rules out 4th generation and a sterile neutrino. And, it produces the neutrino oscillation.

Nine, the matter/vacuum interaction will produce a ‘vacuum boson’.

Ten, all 48 fermions share an ‘equal right’ (the mass-land-charge), while their apparent masses are different. That is, all those 48 fermions are the SAME kind, and Majorana neutrino is ruled out.

Eleven, it moves the ENTIRE universe from ‘NOW’ to ‘NEXT’, which produces gravity, ‘quantum-ness’ and ‘unified force’.

Figure 4

Twelve, it creates a ‘bookkeeping’: entropy and CC (Cosmology Constant)

Figure 5

Thirteen, it produces ‘bio-computer (a Turing machine)’.

Figure 6

Fourteen, it demands a dark flow (W, from 100 to 0%) for the evolution of this universe. The W is 9% now.

Figure 7

The above is explained below.

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Locking the measuring rulers with intrinsic angles:

Figure 12

Figure 13

Energy/mass distribution:

Figure 14

Producing ‘quantum-ness’, ‘unified force’ and accelerating the universe expansion:

Figure 15

Figure 16

Producing a vacuum boson.

Figure 17

Figure 18

This is an eleven –dimensional universe.

Figure 19

Here is the Physics-TOE.

Figure 20

B: The verifications

The above Heavenly laws are slowly but surely verified by the artistic baby (the mainstream physics).

One, acceleration expansion of this universe was verified in 1997.

Two, the vacuum boson (with 125.26 Gev) was discovered in 2012.

Three, Neff = 3 is verified by Planck (2013, 2015) data.

Four, energy/mass distribution was verified by Planck CMB data (2013) and by Dark Energy Survey (2017).

Figure 21

Five, WIMP is ruled out in 2017, see

Six, MOND is ruled out in 2017 by LIGO data.

Seven, Big Bang matter/anti-matter annihilation is ruled out in 2017, see .

Eight, the Weinberg angle is now measured precisely = 28.75 degrees, see .

Nine, the dark flow (W = 9%) was discovered in 2016 by Adam Riess, see .

Figure 22

Figure 23

C: Possessed baby soul rescued

While the growth of this artistic baby (mainstream physics) is progressing slowly but nicely, its soul is nonetheless possessed by three demons: {Copenhagen doctrine (measurement mystery and Schrödinger’s Cat), GR (General Relativity) and Higgs mechanism, see }.

Fortunately, the ‘Cellular Automaton Quantum Mechanics’ is now casting out the ‘Copenhagen demon’, see .

Figure 24

Figure 25

Fortunately, the Higgs demon is about to be exorcised.

One, the Higgs naturalness has now failed, even if SUSY Were existing at GUT scale.

Two, the Majorana neutrino is about completely ruled out.

First, a very strong hint shows that neutrino is different from its anti-particle.

Second, the observation of ‘Big Bang Nucleosynthesis’ is very much ruling out the Majorana neutrino.

Figure 26

D: The lingering hallucinations are cured

Two physics hallucinations happened about at the same time and they converge to the same delusive wonderland, the Multiverse.

The M-string theory gets zillions ‘string vacua’, which leads to the multiverse.

The ‘inflation scenario (without a guiding principle for the initial conditions)’ leads to ‘Eternal inflation’ which in turn leads to the multiverse.

The wonder drug for these hallucinations is showing that Multiverse is a delusion with two points.

One, the soul of the multiverse is that the structure constants of THIS universe are just happenstances (the result of the Boltzmann’s brain). That is, even nature (or God) does not know how to calculate the structure constants of this universe. So, by showing the ways of calculating them, that hallucination is cured.

Two, by showing that those calculations are not bubble dependent, it further bursts the delusion bubble.

Now, many prominent physicists (such as Paul J. Steinhardt and et al) are joining in to eradicate these physics hallucinations, see .

F: the remaining living dead

SM (Standard Model of particle physics) has passed every test which we can throw at it, but no one believes that SM is a correct final theory.

On the other hand, everyone still sees GR (General Relativity) being a Gospel of gravity, especially after the LIGO announcement on October 16, 2017.

Indeed, GR has also passed all tests which we can throw at it. Indeed, LIGO could be a great tool for viewing the Cosmos in a different way. But, these will not change the fundamental FACT that GR is a totally wrong description of gravity.

The most important damning FACT on GR is that GR plays no role at ALL in the Heavenly Father’s description (HFD) of THIS universe.

In HFD, this universe is ruled by a Structure-Function which consists of {G (energy, dark energy) + G (mass; dark and visible)}.

The G (energy) leads to the acceleration of the expansion of this universe. But, most importantly, it also leads to ‘quantum-ness’.

The G (mass) is, of course, leading to Newtonian gravity, while GR is just an attribute of this G (mass).

There is no issue about GR being an excellent effective theory for gravity, but seeing it as the Gospel becomes the major hindrance to getting a correct Gravity-theory. The recent over-hyped LIGO story makes the situation even worse. AT this moment, this GR demon is not yet exorcised in terms of sociology. The KEY mission of this article is to cast this GR demon out once and for all. More details, see .

New Electroweak precision measurements

CMS of LHC (CERN) has just reported new Electroweak precision measurements {(sin(θ), lepton/eff)^2 = 0.23101±0.00052} on November 14, 2017, see .

In Standard Model, Weinberg angle is a function of two more fundamental physical constants: weak isospin g and weak hypercharge g’, and they are all ‘free parameters’ (not derived theoretically).

On the other hand, the Weinberg angle was calculated theoretically in G-theory, see or page 36 of ‘Super Unified Theory”.

In fact, the Weinberg angle (θ) is precisely defined by the equation (10), page 37 of ‘Super Unified Theory”, as follows.

     Sin (Δ θ1) =  Sin^2 (Δ θ2) = (Sin^2   Δ θ3) ^2 = (Sin^3 Δ θ4) ^3

= (Sin^6 Δ θ5) ^6 = (Sin^64 Δ θ6) ^64 ……. Equation (10)

  Sin (Δ θ1) = Sin {A (1) – 3 (A (0)/24}

= Sin {Cabibbo angle (θc)) – 3 (A (0)/24} = 0.23067

Sin^2 (Δ θ2 = 28.75°; Weinberg angle (θW)) = 0.2313502

Δ θ2 = 28.75° (Weinberg angle (θ))

{Sin (Δ θ1) + Sin^2 (Δ θ2)}/2 = 0.2310

All Δ θn are mixing angles.

The Angel and demons in the 100 years of physics nightmare

Natural is moving nicely minute by minute for the past 14 billion years and is playing its predetermined dance to its predetermined destiny with grace and joy.

On the contrary, the human mainstream physics is now in a hellfire nightmare after the discovery of a new boson in 2012. Is it suddenly falling into this hellfire nightmare unexpectedly? Or, were many hellfire demons already plagued the mainstream physics since the beginning 100 years ago? Logically, the latter must be the case. That is, the cause for the nightmare today can be traced out from its history.

The brief history

One, in (1925 – 1927), Copenhagen doctrine DECLARED that ‘quantum uncertainty’ is an intrinsic attribute of nature, and it cannot be removed by improvement of measurement in principle, and this led to the ‘measurement mystery’.

Soon, Schrödinger came up a Cat-riddle, and it CREATED the ‘superposition mystery’, the omnipresent of the ‘Quantum God’.

Two, in early 1954, a general gauge symmetry theory was developed by Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills. Then, in the first part of the 1960s, Murray Gell-Mann discovered the “Eightfold Way representation” from the experimental data. The Yang-Mills theory is a mathematics beautiful tool to describe some symmetries while the ‘Eightfold way’ is obviously encompassing some beautiful symmetry. However, the Yang–Mills field must be massless in order to maintain gauge invariance.

Three, in order for the Yang-Mills gauge to make contact with the real world (the Eightfold Way), it must be spontaneously broken. In 1964, Higgs and et al came up a ‘tar-lake like field’ (the Higgs mechanism) to break the SU gauge spontaneously.

Four, in 1967, Steven Weinberg and others combined an SU (2) gauge (a special Yang-Mills gauge) and the Higgs mechanism to construct the EWT (Electroweak Theory). And, this EWT works beautifully for a two quark model (with up and down quarks).

Five, in the November Revolution of 1974, Samuel Ting discovered Charm quark via the J/ψ meson; the original two quark model was thus expanded as a four-quark model.

Six, in 1973, Maskawa and Kobayashi introduced the “CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction”. Together with the idea of Cabibbo angle (θc), introduced by Nicola Cabibbo in 1963, the ‘Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix’ was constructed. As this CKM matrix demands AT LEAST ‘3 generations of quarks’, a six-quark model was constructed, the SM (Standard Model). The SM further predicts the weak-current (Ws) and neutral current (Z). tau (τ) lepton was discovered in 1975.

Seven, in 1983, the Ws was discovered, and Z soon after. Then, top quark was finally discovered in 1995.

At this point, the SM is basically confirmed. However, the Higgs mechanism also predicted a field boson. As the Higgs mechanism is the KEY cornerstone for SM, it (the SM) will not be complete if the Higgs field boson is not discovered.

The brief history of BSMs

With the great success of SM, a few BSMs (beyond standard model) quickly emerged.

One, the GUT (Grand Unified Theory), with a higher symmetry; {SU (5), SU (3) x SU (2) x U (1); at about 10^16 Gev energy scale}. This work was mainly done by Glashow in 1974. The key prediction of GUT is the proton decay. From the early 1980s, a major effort was launched to detect the proton decay. But, the proton decay’s half-life is now firmly set as over 10 ^ 33 years, much longer than the lifetime of this universe, To date, all attempts to observe new phenomena predicted by GUTs (like proton decay or the existence of magnetic monopoles) have failed. With these results, Glashow was basically going into hibernation, while hoping that ‘sterile neutrino’ come to his rescue.

Two, the Preon model (done by Abdus Salam) which was expanded as Rishons model (mainly done by Haim Harari). It has sub-quarks (T, V): {T (Tohu which means “unformed” in Hebrew Genesis)  and V ( Vohu which means “void” in Hebrew Genesis)}.

Rishons (T or V) carry hypercolor to reproduce the quark color, but this set up renders the model non-renormalizable. So, it was almost abandoned on day one.

Three, the M-string theory began as a bosonic string theory. In order to produce fermions, it must incorporate the idea of SUSY. That is, M-string theory and SUSY must be Dicephalic parapagus twins.

In the 1960s–1970s, Vera Rubin and Kent Ford had confirmed the existence of dark mass (not dark matter). SUSY was claimed as the best candidate to provide this dark mass. Thus, M-string theory dominates the BSM for the past 40 years.

The awakening of the demons

In 2012, a Higgs boson-like particle was discovered, with a measured mass = 125.26 Gev which is trillions and trillions smaller than the expected value.

The only way out of this predicament is by having a hidden massive partner to cancel (balance) out its huge mass. This massive partner can be a SUSY particle or a twin-Higgs. By March 2017, no twin-Higgs nor any SUSY were discovered under two (2) Tev range. Even if SUSY were existing in a higher energy sphere, it (SUSY) is no longer a solution for this Higgs-naturalness issue.

Furthermore, the b/b-bar should account for over 60% decaying channel for Higgs boson. But by now (November 2017), this channel is still not confirmed. The best number was 4.5 sigma from a report a year ago, which is not enough to make a confirmation. Most importantly, even if the channel were confirmed, it cannot meet this 60% mark.

Thus, many physicists now are open the possibility that this 2012-boson might not be the Higgs boson per se.

Yet, this Higgs demon does not stop its dance with the above issues.

The neutrino’s mass by definition cannot be accounted by Higgs mechanism, as a tar-lake like field to slow down the massless particle to gain an apparent mass, as neutrinos do not slow down in the Higgs field at all. Thus, neutrinos must be Majorana fermions.

Yet, the Majorana angel has never been observed.

One, by definition, Majorana particle must be its own antiparticle. But, many data now show that neutrino is different from its antiparticle.

Two, Majorana neutrino should induce the ‘neutrinoless double beta decay’, but its half-life is now set as over 10 ^ 25 years, much longer than the lifetime of this universe.

Three, by definition again, Majorana particle’s mass must come from ‘Sea-saw’ mechanism, that is, balanced by a massive partner, such as sterile neutrino or else (SUSY or whatnot). But, ‘sterile neutrino’ is now almost completely ruled out by many data (IceCube, etc.)

Four, the most recent analysis of the ‘Big Bang Nucleosynthesis’ fits well if the neutrino is a Dirac fermion (without a massive partner). If the neutrino is viewed as Majorana particle (with a hidden massive partner), ‘the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis’ can no longer fit the observation data.

Without a Majorana neutrino, the Higgs mechanism is DEAD. With a dead Higgs mechanism, SM is then fundamentally wrong as a correct model, although it is an effective theory.

This Higgs demon is now killing the SM, pushing the mainstream physics into the hellfire dungeon.

Of course, Weinberg and many prominent physicists still hope a rescue from one of the BSMs, especially from the M-string theory. But, SUSY (a major component of M-string) is now totally ruled out as an EFFECTIVE rescue. And, many most prominent String-theorists are now abandoning the M-string theory, see Steven Weinberg video presentation for ‘Int’l Centre for Theoretical Physics’ on Oct 17, 2017, at 1:32 (one hour and 32 minutes mark. The video is available at . A brief quote for his saying is available at

The rescuing angels

While the theoretical physics is falling into the hellfire dungeon step by step, the experimental physics angels are descending on Earth with sincerity and kindness.

One, dark mass (not dark matter) was firmly confirmed by 1970s.

Two, acceleration of the expansion of the universe was discovered in 1997.

Three, a good estimation of CC (Cosmology Constant) ~ 3×10−122 was reached in the 2000s.

Four, a new boson with 125.26 Gev mass was discovered in 2012.

Five, Planck CMB data (2013 and 2015) provided the followings:

(dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82)

Neff = 3.04 +/- …

Hubble Constant: H0 (early universe) = 66.93 ± 0.62 km s−1 Mpc−1 (by Using ΛCDM with Neff = 3)

These were further supported by ‘Dark Energy Survey”.

Six, the Local Value of the Hubble Constant: H0 (now, later universe) = 73.24 ± 1.74 km s−1 Mpc−1. The difference between this measurement and the Planck CMB data show a dark flow rate, w = 9%.

Seven, the LIGO twin-neutron stars coalescing ruled out most of the MOND models in October 2017.

Eight, there is no difference between matter and its antimatter in addition to being having different electric charges.

The failed Inter-Universes Escape

Under a total siege by the data angels, the Higgs mechanism led army planed an ‘Inter-Universes Escape’. Its war plan was very simple, with two tactics.

One, blind its own eyes and yelling super loud: {We are the only game in town.} For this, they organized a Munich conference: {Why Trust a Theory? Reconsidering Scientific Methodology in Light of Modern Physics, on 7-9 December 2015, see }.

Two, INVENTING almost unlimited ghost universes by using the dominant cosmology theory, the ‘inflation cosmology’.

“Inflation” was a reverse-engineering work for resolving some cosmology observations, such as the flatness, horizon and homogeneous cosmologic facts. As a reverse-engineering, it (inflation) of course fits almost all the old data and many NEW observations. But, almost all reverse-engineering are only constrained by the THEN observed data while without any ‘guiding principle’.

That is, the ‘initial condition’ of the ‘inflation’ cannot be specified or determined. This guidance-less fact allows unlimited ‘inflation models’ to be invented. Of course, it leads to ‘eternal inflation’, having unlimited bubble-universes.

At the same time, the M-string theory also reached its final destination, the ‘String Landscape’, having also unlimited string vacua, again for unlimited bubble-universes (the Multiverse). That is,

“Eternal inflation” = ‘string landscape’ = multiverse

Now, there is a CONVERGENCE coming from two independent pathways, and this could be a great justification for its validity.

With the superweapon of Multiverse, ‘the Higgs mechanism led army’ is no longer besieged by the angel of facts. Those facts (nature constants, etc.) of this universe is just a random happenstance, and even Nature does not know how to calculate them.

The only way to kill this Multiverse escape is by showing:

One, ALL the angel facts of THIS universe can be calculated.

Two, ALL the angel facts of THIS universe is bubble-independent, see .

More discussions on M-string theory is available at .

The Arch-Demons

In addition to rule out the Multiverse nonsense, there are some other major issues:

One, baryongenesis

Two, the dark energy/dark mass

Three, the gravity/spacetime

Four, is ‘Quantum-ness’ fundamental? (Including its measurement and superposition issues).

In G-theory, the ‘quantum-ness’ is not fundamental but emerges from the dark energy, see .

Furthermore, the G-theory universe is all about ‘computation’, that is, there must be a computing device in the laws of physics. And, of course, there is. In G-theory, both proton and neutron are the base of Turing computer, see .

These two points show that the ‘quantum-ness’ is not about ‘uncertainty’ but is all about the ‘Cosmo-certainty’, see . That is, the Copenhagen doctrine is, in fact, one of the Arch-Demon.

In addition to ‘computation’, THIS (not other-verse) universe is all about energy and mass. So, the Structure-Function of THIS universe can be defined as:

S (universe) = S (energy, mass)

= S (dark energy, dark mass, visible relativistic mass/energy)

As both Newtonian and GR are related to the structure of this universe, Gravity can be defined by the S-function, as:

Gravity = G (S) = G (dark energy, dark mass, visible mass)

= G (dark energy) @ G (mass)

For G (mass), it has only one parameter, mass. This FACT shows that every ‘mass’ must interact with ALL other masses in THIS universe. That is, the Simultaneity Function can be defined by G (mass), that is,

G (mass) = Si (mass); G (mass) is a simultaneity function.

This Si function can be renormalized only if the gravity interaction transmits instantaneously. In fact, if the gravity of the Sun reaches Earth with light speed, it will not fit the reality. The Sun/Earth gravitational interaction is precisely described with Newtonian gravity law, which encompasses instantaneity.

So, for Sun/Earth gravity at least (if not for other cases), G (mass) should be the function of both {simultaneity and instantaneity}. Thus, we can define:

G (Sun/Earth) = G (mass, simultaneity, instantaneity)

For Newtonian gravity, the ‘masses’ are wrapped into two points, the ‘center of mass’ while the simultaneity and instantaneity are the innate part of the equation.

For GR, the simultaneity and instantaneity are wrapped into the ‘spacetime sheet’. When mass interacts with the GR spacetime sheet, it transmits both simultaneously and instantaneously.

This kind of wrapping makes both gravity theories automatically incomplete, as effective theories at best. Now, Newtonian gravity is now viewed as wrong in terms of Occam’s razor, and thus it does the modern physics no harm. On the other hand, GR is still viewed as the Gospel of gravity, and it becomes the greatest hindrance to getting a correct gravity theory.

If GR did provide us some insights before, it is a long time ago past tense. The recent promotion of the greatness of the LIGO discovery will further drag us down the hellfire dungeon. LIGO indeed might provide some additional data to confirm what we already know, but it cannot rescue GR’s fate as a total trash. The following is just a short list of GR’s shortcomings.

One, GR plays zero roles in the construction of quark/lepton.

Two, GR plays zero roles in calculating the nature constants, such as Alpha or Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, etc.

Three, GR fails to account for dark mass and dark energy, unable to derive the Planck CMB data.

Neff = 3.04 +/- …

Four, GR provides no hint of any kind for the BaryonGenesis, which is definitely a cosmology issue, and this alone should give GR the death sentence.

Five, the last but not the least, GR is not compatible with QM (quantum mechanics).

More details on this, see .

Yes, GR is, of course, a very EFFECTIVE gravity theory (as a great reverse-engineering work) but is definitely a wrong one for the correct theory. The GR wrapping which hides the essences of gravity (simultaneity and instantaneity) renders it unsalvageable and unamendable. That is, it is, in fact, the greatest hindrance to getting a correct gravity theory. So, GR is the other Arch-Demon for modern physics.

Here is the ArchAngel

All the calculations for those angel facts (of section D) are done in G-theory (Prequark Chromodynamics).

Superficially, Prequark model is similar to the Preon (Rishons) model, but there are at least four major differences between them.

One, the Rishons model has sub-quarks (T, V): {T (Tohu which means “unformed” in Hebrew Genesis)  and V ( Vohu which means “void” in Hebrew Genesis)}. But, Harari did not know what T is (just being unformed). On the other hand, the A (Angultron) is an innate angle, a base to calculate Weinberg angle and Alpha, see .

Two, the choosing of (T, V) as the bottom in the Rishons model was ad hoc, a result of reverse-engineering. On the contrary, there is a very strong theoretical reason for where the BOTTOM is in G-theory.

In G-theory, the universe is ALL about computation, computable or non-computable. For computable, there is a TWO-code theorem. For non-computable, there are 4-color and 7-color theorems.

That is, the BOTTOM must be with two-codes. Any lower level under the two-code will become TAUTOLOGY, just repeating itself.

Anything more than two codes (such as 6 quarks + 6 leptons) cannot be the BOTTOM.

Three, rishons (T or V) carry hypercolor to reproduce the quark color, but this set up renders the model non-renormalizable, quickly going into a big mess. So, it was abandoned almost on day one. On the other hand, prequarks (V or A) carry no color, and the quark color arises from the “prequark SEATs”. In short, Rishons model cannot work out a {neutron decay process} different from the SM process.

This is one of the key differences between prequark and (Rishons and SM).

Four, Preon/Rishons model does not have Gene-colors which are the key drivers for the neutrino oscillations.

More details on those differences, see .

In addition to being the theory to describe particles, G-theory also resolves ALL cosmologic issues which consist of only three:

One, the initial condition of THIS universe

Two, the final fate of THIS universe

Three, the BaryonGenesis mystery

BaryonGenesis determines the STRUCTURE of THIS universe, that is,

= G (dark energy) @ G (mass)

So, BaryonGenesis must be the function of G (S), which is described as:

The calculation of this Planck CMB date in G-theory uses the ‘mass-LAND-charge’, that is, all 48 fermions (24 matter and 24 antimatter) carry the same mass-land-charge while their apparent masses are different. And, MASS-pie of THIS universe is evenly divided among those 48 fermions. That is, the antimatter does in fact not disappear (not be annihilated) while it is invisible. See the calculation below. More details, see .

This BaryonGenesis of G-theory rules out the entire sterile dark sector (WIMPs, SUSY, sterile neutrino, axion, MOND, etc.) completely.

On November 8, 2017, Nature (Magazine) announced the death of WIMP, see .

This BaryonGenesis calculation must also link to the issues of the {initial condition and the final fate}. And indeed, it does.

BaryonGenesis, in fact, has two issues.

One, where is the antimatter in THIS universe?

Two, why is THIS universe dominated by matter while not by antimatter?

The ‘One’ was answered with the above calculation.

The ‘Two’ can only be answered by ‘Cyclic Multiverse’.

However, for THIS universe goes into a ‘big crunch’ state, the omega (Ω) must be larger than 1, while it is currently smaller than 1. That is, there must be a mechanism to move (evolve) Ω from less than 1 to bigger than 1.

Again, only G-theory has such a mechanism, and it is not a separately invented but is a part of BaryonGenesis calculation, the ‘Dark Flow, W’.

This dark flow (W) prediction of the G-theory was confirmed in 2016, see .

G-theory, of course, accounts for the ‘initial condition’, see .

Army of the Archangel

Weinberg has been complaining about the Arch-Demon (Copenhagen doctrine) many times but without making any new proposal, see .

On the other hand, ‘t Hooft (Nobel Laureate) did embrace the G-theory from the point of Cellular Automaton Quantum-ness, see . In 2016, he even published a book on it.

More details, see .

Sabine Hossenfelder just issued a death sentence for Naturalness (see ).

The death of Naturalness is a precursor to the death of Higgs Mechanism.

Steven Weinberg just revealed the death of M-string theory in his October 2017 video lecture.

Paul J. Steinhardt announced the death of ‘inflation cosmology’ in 2016.

The current hellfire nightmare of the mainstream physics did not start in 2012 but is the results of three demons {Copenhagen doctrine, GR and the Higgs mechanism}, began in 100 years ago. Fortunately, many angel facts (experimental data) have revealed their demon-faces. Finally, the ArchAngel (the G-theory) has come to the rescue. With the growing army of ArchAngel, the human physics’ salvation is now secured.


Mauritania - Pupil-teacher ratio, primary

Pupil-teacher ratio, primary in Mauritania was reported at 36.37 in 2016, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources.

Please Paste this Code in your Website
 mauritania pupil teacher ratio primary wb data

Primary school pupil-teacher ratio is the number of pupils enrolled in primary school divided by the number of primary school teachers (regardless of their teaching assignment).

Mauritania | Education


Eric Dolphy: Gone In The Air

Mark Werlin By

Sign in to view read count
When you hear music, after it's over, it's gone in the air. You can never capture it again. —Eric Dolphy
Newly-remastered SACD reissues of Eric Dolphy's albums for the Prestige label mark the 90th anniversary of his birth.

The recording sessions that Eric Dolphy led in the last four years of his life advanced the evolution of jazz. It was a tragedy that Eric Dolphy gave himself so completely and unselfishly to art that he neglected to attend to the mundane demands of bodily health. The impact of his death on June 29, 1964 at age 36 is immeasurable. The sudden loss traumatized his closest friends and deprived the world of his gifts. Dolphy's musical conception was seen by some critics as destructive and incomprehensible, though he affirmed the highest standards of jazz tradition. His most passionate supporters were fellow musical innovators, and his most hostile detractors were complacent musical conservatives. Eric's playing rose up above the din and distractions, like the songs of the birds in his parents' garden.

ACT ONE: preparation

The entrance of Eric Dolphy onto the jazz stage of New York was delayed so long that it could be said the play of his life had only two acts.

The first act was set in Los Angeles, where Eric Allan Dolphy was born on June 20, 1928. Eric's musical journey initially followed the same road as many jazz musicians of his generation: instrument study in high school with additional private lessons; then college or conservatory classes in music theory. Dolphy's technical perfectionism and precocious mastery of Charlie Parker's alto saxophone style brought him into contact with composer-bassist Charles Mingus. Eric performed on "The Story of Love," a large-ensemble session in 1949, one of relatively few recordings Mingus made prior to his departure from the West Coast.

In 1952, after a two-year stint in the Army, Dolphy faced the choice of moving to New York with the hope of distinguishing himself in a highly competitive pool of talented bebop players, or staying in Los Angeles and pursuing commercial session work. He chose neither option, and it was a consequential decision. His father improvised a rehearsal studio for him on their property, and for the next six years Eric Dolphy rehearsed privately, and with local and touring musicians. John Coltrane, while on a West Coast tour with the Miles Davis Quintet, visited Eric's studio. Coltrane had only recently emerged from a decade-long rigorous and lonely practice regimen; he understood what Eric was seeking to achieve. The two entered into a close friendship that lasted for the rest of Dolphy's life.

In the 1950s professional jazz musicians paid their dues night after night in smoke-filled clubs. They toured with big bands and small combos, learned how to play to an audience's expectations, and slogged through charts that barely challenged their abilities but earned them a paycheck. For several years, Eric Dolphy paid hardly any of those dues. He found local nightclub work, sometimes in projects with his friends Buddy Colette and Gerald Wilson. What he was hearing had little to do with the West Coast "cool jazz" sound. In long hours rehearsing in his room, he studied the bass clarinet, an orchestral instrument with a four-octave range. Bass clarinet was prominently featured in the work of 20th century Russian and Second Vienna School composers, and brought to a wide listening audience in recorded performances by Harry Carney, a member of the Duke Ellington orchestra. Dolphy's practice regimen allowed him to master this difficult instrument, and to develop a saxophone-like style of playing over the entire range. To Eric, all sounds were beautiful: he listened to the birds in his parents' garden and sought to evoke their songs on his third instrument, the flute.

ACT TWO: performance

At age 30 Eric was propelled out of his rehearsal room onto the wider stage of professional music. Eric's friend Buddy Collette, also a multi-instrumentalist, was leaving the Chico Hamilton band. On Collette's recommendation, Hamilton hired Dolphy and took him on the road and into the studio. Hamilton recorded for nationally-distributed record labels; for the first time, Dolphy's Parkerian alto and distinctive bass clarinet sounds were heard by fellow musicians, critics and jazz listeners. Eric's earliest recording with the Hamilton group was a set of Duke Ellington compositions recorded in August 1958 that producer Dick Bock at Pacific Jazz, reportedly displeased with Eric's distinctive alto saxophone playing, pulled from release. (Chico Hamilton with Eric Dolphy: The Original Ellington Suite was sourced from an LP test pressing located in England and sent to producer Michael Cuscuna, who oversaw its long-belated release in 2000). The setback was a disturbing omen of the critical obstacle course Eric would confront in subsequent years.

At the end of 1959, the Chico Hamilton group was disbanded. Dolphy settled in New York, ready for new challenges. He'd felt artistically constrained during his time with Hamilton; he was hearing unusual alternate chords superimposed over the written chords in the charts, and he wanted to play those notes, not just the 'right' notes. Like Mingus, he listened to the developments of 20th century classical music; like Coltrane, he strived to play inside the traditions laid down by preceding generations, but with the freedom to venture outside the boundaries of bebop harmonic conventions.

In a short time, Dolphy advanced to the frontline of new creative music. Signed to the Prestige New Jazz division, he began a busy recording schedule.

Out There

For his second Prestige session Out There, he requested Ron Carter, with whom he'd played in Chico Hamilton's group. Dolphy conceived of a pianoless quartet with Carter on cello, and no additional horn. Reduction from the standard bebop quintet opened space for an intimate, chamber music style of performance, a framework for Dolphy and Carter to venture "out there." The rhythm section of George Duvivier and Roy Haynes were in the elite of professional musicians, technically equipped to play any style of jazz. Haynes would be Coltrane's choice to fill in for Elvin Jones during Jones' worst period of heroin use.

Although not named on the album's liner notes, Esmond Edwards is credited on AllMusic and Discogs with the 'audio production' of Out There. Dolphy's recordings for Prestige, as a leader and as a sideman with Oliver Nelson, Mal Waldron, and Makanda Ken McIntyre, were all produced by Edwards.

Esmond Edwards was an accomplished photographer whose images appear on many classic Prestige and Blue Note covers. He rose from Prestige's mailroom to become an in-house producer. Compared to Blue Note, Prestige was a cut-rate operation; it's a tribute to Edwards' resourcefulness that he could produce a date as accomplished as Out There on the kind of low budgets Prestige owner Bob Weinstock allotted.

From the tightly-arranged alto saxophone and cello unison lines on the title track it is clear that Dolphy and Carter are breathing the same rarefied air. Carter takes the first solo, deploying slurs, slides, bounced bow, and double-stops, a virtuoso display that boasts 'I can play anything you throw at me.' Dolphy constructs an unsettling, innovative melodic solo grounded in familiar rhythmic patterns learned from Charlie Parker's recordings. His articulation is almost preternaturally distinct—the reward of endless hours practicing in his rehearsal room. The long lines of notes, each carrying weight and emphasis, the wide interval leaps and false fingered quarter-tones, the sheer unpredictability of his ideas, generate a sound concept unlike Parker or his successors and imitators.

Dolphy's tribute to Charles Mingus, "The Baron," follows the same structure as "Out There," an opening head of angular lines played in unison, this time by the bass clarinet and cello. A cello solo by Carter ends with Dolphy's sudden entrance—as if he were compelled to interrupt Carter in mid-conversation. Dolphy explores the range of the instrument in a dazzling, modernistic solo. The pressure of recording an album in just a few hours of studio time may have driven his impatience to play as much as possible. There are anecdotes about his tendency to jump in unexpectedly when his fellow players hadn't quite finished.

The arrangement of Mingus' song "Eclipse" with Dolphy on his first instrument, the Bb clarinet, moves the set into chamber music territory. Dolphy interprets the long, sustained-notes theme without undue emphasis, using narrow vibrato, while Carter solos eloquently on the cello and Duvivier bows subtle counter-melodies. Dolphy's solo is a dance-like cascade of melodic invention, with leaps into the upper register and graceful descending arpeggios.

Hale Smith's composition "Feathers," which closes the album, reprises the characteristic alto saxophone sound of Dolphy's earliest work with Chico Hamilton, the purity of tone and masterful control of intonation and dynamics. Over bowed bass and plucked cello, Dolphy expresses more effectively than words can convey the poignant evanescence of the musical moment.

Kevin Gray's excellent new transfer, which is noticeably warmer and more detailed than the earlier Fantasy SACD release, shines a light on the methods used by session engineer Rudy Van Gelder to enhance the unusual qualities of this ensemble. On most of the tunes, Ron Carter's cello is panned to the right channel with Roy Haynes' drum kit, but on some tracks Van Gelder moves him to the center for a closer blend with George Duvivier. RVG's practice of increasing and decreasing the level of reverb in the live mix (made more audible in high resolution), needlessly softens the bite of the bows on strings.

Tracks 1. Out There 2. Serene 3. The Baron 4. Eclipse 5. 17 West 6. Sketch Of Melba 7. Feathers

Personnel Eric Dolphy, alto sax, flute, bass clarinet and Bb clarinet; Ron Carter, cello; George Duvivier, bass; Roy Haynes, drums

Audio production by Esmond Edwards. Recorded at Van Gelder Studio, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, August 15, 1960

Mastered for SACD by Kevin Gray at Cohearent Audio

Live At The Five Spot Vol. 1

Live performances allowed Dolphy greater freedom to explore the landscape of his personal musical terrain. On the Mal Waldron composition "Fire Waltz" Eric Dolphy's feet are firmly planted in the soil of jazz tradition, but his alto saxophone soars out of the field of bebop clichés. His solo plunges toward harmonic chaos, punctuated by out-of-chord high notes and glossolalia-like figures. Booker Little, whose hard bop lines rarely stray outside the changes, and composer Waldron, who builds the emotional center of his solo on an interpolation of Gershwin's "I Loves You, Porgy," sound conservative by comparison.

Little's tune "Bee Vamp" features Dolphy on bass clarinet. By the middle of his solo, constrained by Waldron's sympathetic but conventional comping, Dolphy alternates between rapid-fire atonal outbursts and articulate phrases that run closer to the chord changes. The tension between Dolphy's avant-garde leanings and Waldron's traditionalism creates a strangely uncomfortable mood; though the ensemble playing is tight and compelling, the players' conceptions are too diverse for the performances to cohere. Dolphy doesn't need the chain and anchor of received musical wisdom.
About Eric Dolphy
Articles | Calendar | Discography | Photos | More...

Shop for Music


Displacement of aggression refers to a redirection of harm-doing behavior from a primary to a secondary target or victim. An early theory of displacement was proposed by Sigmund Freud in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1950). Freud suggested that persons tend to attack the sources of frustration, but if an individual cannot attack such a source because the target is unavailable or too powerful, a substitute target may become the victim of the pent-up anger. This mechanism explained apparently irrational behavior, such as a person's killing a total stranger for no apparent reason. Frustration causes a buildup of inner tension, which is expended when the individual expresses aggression toward a target. The amount of aggression is postulated to be directly related to the amount of cumulated inner energy. A sudden release of energy through aggressive action is referred to as catharsis.

In Frustration and Aggression (1939), Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears converted the literary and meta-phoric language of Freud into the scientifically more acceptable, positivistic language of laboratory-oriented be-havioristic psychologists. According to Dollard and his colleagues, aggressive behavior—like all other kinds of behavior—should be considered subject to the laws of learning. They defined frustration as any stimulus that blocked the goal attainment of an organism striving to attain a goal. Frustration causes a buildup of aggressive drive, which presses for behavioral expression in the form of harm-doing. When a person directs an aggressive response at a frustrating agent and the response is successful in removing the barrier to goal attainment, aggression is rewarded. A rewarded response is more likely to recur the next time the individual faces a similar situation. Thus, while harm-doing behavior reduces aggressive drive and additional immediate aggression, it is rewarding and increases the likelihood of harm-doing when the individual is frustrated again in the future.

Rewarding an individual for inhibiting an aggressive response or punishing harm-doing behavior may teach self-control. As a result of learned inhibition, the aggressive energy generated by frustration either continues to build up or is expressed in indirect ways. While fear of punishment inhibits aggressive behavior, the cumulated internal energy pushes for its expression. These two conflicting forces were conceptualized by Miller (1948) in terms of a model incorporating approach and avoidance forces, but this conflict model has had little subsequent impact on research. Displacement is essentially a principle of substitution of responses or of targets and may be viewed in terms of response or stimulus generalization.

The concept of displacement has been used to explain a wide variety of behaviors; for example, ethnic prejudice and discrimination may be considered a form of displacement. Thus, researchers have tried to show that historically a decline in cotton prices in the southern United States was associated with an increase in lynchings of African Americans. The reasoning is that bad economic results were frustrating to farmers, who took out their anger on Blacks—a type of scapegoating theory. Similarly, wars have been considered to be a result of the cumulated frustrations of many people manifested in an aggression toward a substitute target: the enemy nation. The importance of understanding displacement effects is certainly underlined by the frequent reference of the concept to ethnic, racial, and religious conflicts; child abuse, lynchings, riots, suicides, revolutions, and many other important social behaviors.

The establishment of the frustration-aggression interpretation is undermined by evidence failing to demonstrate catharsis effects (the reduction of subsequent aggression immediately following aggressive behavior). Furthermore, there is no evidence of a buildup of more intense aggressive behavior over a series of frustrating experiences. The fact of displacement-like effects is indisputable, and alternative theories are being developed that rely on concepts drawn from factors related to interpersonal interactions rather than intrapsychic dynamics. Among these alternative explanations are active downward comparisons, self-presentation, negative equity, and guilt by association. Active downward comparison refers to an individual's efforts to lower the performance or identity of another person or group so as to enhance his or her own identity (Wills, 1981). For example, acting to block the opportunities of others (such as providing them with inferior schools) serves to maintain the relative superiority of the discriminating person or group. The desire for positive self-esteem is considered the motivating factor.

Tedeschi and Norman (1985), however, argued that putting others down raises the self up, not so much for internal self-esteem reasons but for the purpose of presenting oneself to others as better or superior in some way. In this formulation, individuals are highly motivated to establish and maintain desirable identities in order to foster positive and rewarding interactions with other people. As a result, an individual is willing to harm someone else if doing so will help promote a positive identity for the individual in the eyes of others. The victims of such harm-doing may have done nothing to provoke or justify the action. For example, a group of teenage boys, each one of them motivated by the desire to impress the other boys with his willingness to use violence, may attack someone at random.

Motivation to restore equity may also produce displacement-like behavior. Members of most groups expect rewards to be fairly distributed. The rule of equity prescribes that each member should receive a share of the rewards proportional to his or her contribution to the group's success in attaining the rewards. It is assumed that people are motivated to maintain justice and that, when an injustice occurs, something should be done to restore justice. When rewards are unfairly distributed in a group, disadvantaged members may be motivated to restore equity. If for some reason no action can be taken against the source of the inequity, other means of restoring equity may be undertaken. For example, if a boss distributes Christmas bonuses to his or her workers, and a few of the workers believe they received unfairly low bonuses, they should be motivated to restore equity. They cannot punish the boss for fear of losing their jobs, but they might take out their anger by harming (probably in some nonviolent way) the relatively advantaged workers. Such action restores equity in the sense that the advantaged workers are made to suffer, detracting from the monetary gain and thus making outcomes more fair.

Anthropologists and historians have noted that retaliation is often visited upon coconspirators, blood relatives, or friends of instigators, rather than directly against the instigator. Victims sometimes hold all members of an out-group equally responsible for harm done to them and may retaliate against one of the weaker members of the out-group. Thus, retaliation may be directed against any member of a rival gang, or in blood feuds, against any member of the target family. Hate groups may randomly target any member of the hated group. The representative target chosen from the category of believed enemies may be completely innocent and unaware of any harm done to the aggressor. The attack represents a displacementlike effect, since revenge is not taken against a frustrating agent but against an innocent third party—although such an attack may serve to punish the frustrating agent by harming a loved one, or it may be motivated to deter future harm-doing by that agent.

Dollard, J., Doob, N., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Freud, S. (1950). Beyond the pleasure principle (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: Liveright.

Miller, N. E. (1948). Theory and experiment relating psychoanalytic displacement to stimulus-response generalization. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 155-178.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social mechanisms of displaced aggression. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 29-56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.

James T. Tedeschi

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Overcome Shyness 101

Overcome Shyness 101

You can find out step by step what you need to do to overcome the feeling of being shy. There are a vast number of ways that you can stop feeling shy all of the time and start enjoying your life. You can take these options one step at a time so that you gradually stop feeling shy and start feeling more confident in yourself, enjoying every aspect of your life. You can learn how to not be shy and start to become much more confident and outgoing with this book.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment


Whether you're part of the growing army of Americans who work from home, or you commute daily to an office, before you start work today, take a few minutes to reflect on your surroundings. Are they spacious and uncluttered? Or is your desk full of half-eaten candy bars and coffee-stained mugs? Does the air circulate freely and give you room to maneuver and engage with your coworkers, or do you have to hurdle over obstacles on your way to your chair? When it comes to creativity, location matters.

We're talking about the location of your furniture, the space between your workers' desks, common areas, and maximizing every aspect of the physical space, from floors and walls to furnishings, not prime real estate. Sure, we'd all like to work from a palm fringed beach hut in the Maldives, or a highly hung canopy-deep in the jungle. But independent of your physical location, whether you're in a penthouse in Wall Street or a basement in Harlem, the space you work in has a direct impact on how creative you are. Here's why.

According to Tom Heffernan of Gensler architects, you can leverage the power of design to create a better learning environment and a more creative workplace. He says, "Learning spaces must incorporate opportunities for experimentation and create feedback loops for students to try something new and see the results of their efforts, then adjust their approach." While Heffernan was referring to an educational facility, the same idea holds true in the workplace.

To prepare students for the nature of new and more creative roles, a traditional lecture theatre is thrown out in favor of freer spaces that allow them to form small groups and get absorbed in the learning to produce their most creative work. When you apply the same concept to the workplace, the same results can be seen. Brainstorming sessions and innovative ideas by coming together, rather than stuck behind a desk facing a wall.

Heffernan explains, "By giving students more room to move, resources to use and time to engage, they immerse themselves in their education until learning starts to look like play, resulting in curiosity and inquiry. A passion for inquiry can be viewed as a model of success in this new learning ethos, encouraging students to ask questions of their environment."

Just think about some of the most creative companies around, like Apple and Google, whose site campuses are world famous. It's not just about PR. Beyond the yoga classes and bringing your pets to work, there's a clear understanding of how the location around their workers positively impacts their creativity

For example, it should be easy for workers to mix with upper management and to feel that they can move around freely. The newly inaugurated Apple Park wasn't just designed to be a cool campus, but a "democratic workplace" to foster innovation.

Heffernan reinforces the importance of doing away with the traditional distance between teachers and students in universities, saying, "Students want to interact with faculty members outside of office hours, and thus it is important to create common spaces shared by all members of the school, faculty, students and administration to provide for great opportunities for mentorship and inspiration."

The spaces between classrooms and offices are important too. They are not just connectors in between buildings or departments, every inch of your premises matters. "Outdoor spaces need to be treated as learning environments and not just connector paths. Stress on campus is high, so the space should demonstrate life/work balance to offset." Few companies have shown their understanding of the importance of this balance as well as Apple and Google, with gyms, restaurants and even massage rooms for staff.

You may not have the resources of a sprawling multinational, but you can start with the small things, such as trying a little feng shui! If your office is divided into compartments, consider removing some segments or knocking down some walls. Or, at the very least, implementing an open door policy that allows employees to be heard and feel important.

Where you sit can increase productivity, as well as which workers sit together, and how their chairs are arranged, so consider all details of your working environment and try to maximize each one. Location matters if you want to get the creative juices flowing freely, rather than getting blocked, crashing into furniture or walls.

Published on: Dec 13, 2017


Meat preparation as per Meatco

29 Jun 2018

Meatco remains one of the establishment’s that promises a shelf-life of 6 months on its meat products. Through this meat is produced and packaged in certain ways to ensure quality at all times for respective clients.

The most important component for meat preparation at Meatco is safeguarding the freshness of the meat at all times. This means no access blood is to be contained in the product while its normal reddish colour is maintained. Another element taken into consideration is the odour; meat should always excrete a fresh smell instead of a liver or wood like smell. Furthermore, the hygiene or cleanliness of the meat before preparation is vital and is fostered thorough washing the meat cuts.  The date and time between packaging, cooking and selling of the product should consequently always be in sync and monitored carefully. The meat is then allowed to stand for some time to allow water to drip from the after washing, access fat is then removed.

At Meatco meat is prepared in two types of ways and is not limited to:

·         Roasting or Grilling

During this stage minimal to no spices are used to ensure the natural taste of the meat. This limits the use of spices or salts to retrieve actual taste. As the utilisation of similar spices on various meat cuts results in the meat producing the same taste for each cut. Therefore minimal or no spices are used in the meat preparation process.

·         Stewing Cooking in Liquid

This type of preparation entails washing and cooking meat in little water through the sensory evaluation test mentioned above. After cooking, odour, flavour and texture are tested by panels. Noteworthy, when meat is cooked with fat substances it becomes hard and loses the element of tenderness. Therefore, these types of meat preparation are a shelf-life and a quality control requirement.

According to Laboratory Manager, Kalihulu Shapwa, Meatco promises to provide our clients with quality boneless sought-after meat. In this vein, we advise our clients to also prepare meat in such a way that they can get the best out of it by ensuring minimal use of spices or salts.

“Because we market our meat  products to certain organic restaurants in the United Kingdom (UK) who prepare their meat in a way that preserves nutrients, such as proteins s . Producing hormone free meat in Namibia gives us the non-competitive edge guaranteeing the quality aspect,” Shapwa said.